DESCRIPTION OF RELATED ART
There have been numerous attempts to construct a musical instrument of the violin family, i.e., a violin, a viola, a cello, and a string bass, also referred to as a double bass, of synthetic materials, specifically, fiberglass, carbon fibers, and graphite fibers. None have been particularly successful in the marketplace, principally due to their lack of a satisfactory tone and/or power, i.e., projection. Patented examples include: U.S. Pat. No. 3,186,288 to Finch; U.S. Pat. No. 3,427,915 to Mooney; U.S. Pat. No. 3,699,836 to Glasser; U.S. Pat. No. 3,969,971 to Delu; U.S. Pat. No. 4,408,516 to John; U.S. Pat. No. 4,592,264 to Svoboda; U.S. Pat. No. 4,809,579 to Maccaferri; U.S. Pat. No. 4,836,076 to Bernier; U.S. Pat. No. 4,955,274 to Stephens; and U.S. Pat. No. 5,171,926 to Besnainou et al.
The history of musical instruments, especially stringed instruments of the violin family, has underscored the old adage that you can't tell a book by its cover. For the last several centuries, the standard for violins and cellos has been the Stradivarius. Its shape especially has been copied regardless of the materials or manufacturing techniques developed. Yet, the difference in playability has been all too apparent. In most instances, the Stradivarius looks the same as the newly formed instrument. All corresponding parts are of essentially the same size and shape, they are joined together in virtually the same manner, and they look almost identical. Yet, even to an untrained ear, the difference in the way they sound and the way they project their music explains the six-figure difference in their cost. The cause of the differences in musical quality ultimately resides in the overall combination of shape and materials.
Changes in materials, carbon fibers for example, when compared to the usual wooden bodies of the violin family, changes the resonance and timbre of the vibrations produced thereby, which would seem to require other changes elsewhere in compensation, if one wished to emulate the accepted standard. For some inventors, the form of the Stradivarius is basic, sacrosanct. See Finch and Maccaferri, supra, for instance. In order to compensate for a change in materials, in an attempt to bring the tonal qualities thereof back to the desired norm, other inventors have modified the resonant cavity within the body; see Delu, Bernier, and Stephens, supra. Others have concentrated on the make-up of the soundboard or back; see Mooney, Glasser, John, and Besnainou et al., supra. Finally, others, e.g., Svoboda, supra, have combined disparate materials to achieve the desired tone. The results have not been happy ones. The combination of changes necessary to produce a quality instrument has eluded those skilled in the art. The meagre number of patents in this field in the last decade attests to the bewilderment prevalent in the field.
Any change in such an established commodity is bound to be simple, perhaps even known in the art separately in bits and pieces. But, the readily available changes are so abundant, the permutations and combinations are virtually innumerable, and the right combination for a successful instrument is very easy to overlook. The inventor, a concert cellist for the Boston Symphony Orchestra, has found the right combination after years of experimentation. The prototype for this disclosure has been played in concerts with the BSO as well as in personal recitals. Its quality has been proven to be acceptable at the highest level!